Delhi Court February 2019 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2019 Page 40 of about 750 results (0.046 seconds)Satbir Dalal & Ors. Vs.state (Govt. Of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
* I N T H E H I G H C O U R T O F D E L H I A T N E W D E L H I % Judgment delivered on:14. h February 2019 + CRL.REV.P. 678/2015 & Crl. M.A. 15667/2015 SATBIR DALAL & ORS versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ........ Petitioners ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : For the... RESPONDENTS : Mr. Anunaya Mehta and Mr. Akshay Deep Singhal, Advs Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J JUDGMENT1 The petitioners impugn order on charge dated 08.09.2015 and the consequent charge framed against the petitioners under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC.2.... Petitioner No.1 is the father-in-law of the deceased.... Petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law.... Petitioner No.3 is the brother of the husband and petitioner No.4 is the wife of the brother of the husband.3. Case of the prosecution is that in the night intervening 20- 21/02/2015 an information regarding quarrel was received at police station Begumpur. A h...
Tag this Judgment!Swarupi Devi and Ors. Vs.suresh Nagar
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.209/2013 * + % SWARUPI DEVI AND ORS. 14th February, 2019 ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Vijay Kumar Shukla, Advocate (Mobile No.9810120927). versus SURESH NAGAR ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendants in the suit impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 15.03.2013 by which the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for partition of the suit property bearing No.495, Block-A, Ganesh Nagar, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092. The respondent/plaintiff is the son of the appellant no.1/defendant no.1. Appellant no.2/defendant no.2 is the brother of the respondent/plaintiff and appellant no.3/defendant no.3 is RFA No.209/2013 Page 1 of 7 the sister of the respondent/plaintiff. The suit property for which partiti...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Kumar & Ors. Vs.state & Anr.
Court: Delhi
$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + CRL.M.C. 831/2019 Judgment delivered on:14. 02.2019 NARESH KUMAR & ORS. STATE & ANR. versus ........ Petitioners ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioners : Mr. Vishvava Nath Kumar, Adv. along with petitioner For the... RESPONDENTS: Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, Addl. PP for the State with SI Surender Singh Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Adv. for R-2 with R-2 in person. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) Crl. M.A. 3346/2019 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 831/2019 1.... Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.151 of 2012 under Sections 498A/4IPC registered at Police Station Vijay Vihar, Delhi, based on a settlement. CRL.M.C. 831/2019 Page 1 of 3 2.3. Subject FIR emanates out of matrimonial discord. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that parties have settled their disputes and the settlement dated 29.08.2018 been the parties has been exec...
Tag this Judgment!Vinay Maggo & Ors. Vs.the State (Gnct) Delhi & Anr
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: February 14, 2019 CRL.M.C. 837/2019 VINAY MAGGO & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Ankur Gupta, Advocate Versus THE STATE (GNCT) DELHI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI R.N. Pathak Respondent No.2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.600/2014, under Sections 498/4of IPC registered at police station Jagat Puri, Delhi is sought on the basis of second respondents affidavit of 12th February, 2019. Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court is the complainant/first informant of FIR in question and she has been identified to be so, by SI R.N. Pathak on the basis of identity proof produced by her. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid affidavit of 12th February, 20...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Pret Study by Janak Fashion Pvt Ltd vs.namrata Goyal
Court: Delhi
$~J- * % + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Pronounced on:14. 02.2019 O.M.P. 17/2017 M/S PRET STUDY BY JANAK FASHION PVT LTD....Petitioner Through Ms.Kaadambari Singh Puri and Ms.Aditi Sharma, Advs. Versus NAMRATA GOYAL Through Mr.Mukesh Anand, Advs. OMP (COMM) 271/2017 ..... Respondent NAMRATA GOYAL Through Mr.Mukesh Anand, Advs. ....... Petitioner Versus PRET STUDY BY JANAK FASHION PVT. LTD Respondent Through Ms.Kaadambari Singh Puri and Ms.Aditi Sharma, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.1. The above two petitions are filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act) seeking to challenge the award dated 07.03.2017 passed by the learned arbitrator. OMP (COMM) 17/2017 is filed by M/s. Pret Study by Janak Fashion Pvt. Ltd. OMP (COMM) 271/2017 is filed by Ms.Namrata Goyal. OMP172017 & OMP (COMM) 271/2017 Page 1 of 21 2. The case was originally filed by Mrs.Namrata Goyal (herein...
Tag this Judgment!Prateek Malik & Ors. Vs.state & Anr
Court: Delhi
$~13 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:-"14th February, 2019 + CRL.M.C. 656/2018 and Crl.M.A.12837/2018 PRATEEK MALIK & ORS. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Nitin Mittal, Advocate with... Petitioners No.1 and 2 in person. versus STATE & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for the State with SI M.K. Manoj, PS Preet Vihar. Mr. Nitin Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Amandeep Singh, Adv. for R-2 with R-2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. The second respondent was married to the first petitioner as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 14.04.2014. On 03.08.2016, she lodged first information report (FIR) no.237/2016 with police station Preet Vihar, alleging offences punishable under Section 498A, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against her husband (first petitioner), his father (second petitioner), his mother (third petitioner), his sister (fourth petitioner), and husband of the said sister (fifth petitioner), the las...
Tag this Judgment!Ms Rupal Anand vs.union of India & Ors
Court: Delhi
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 12680/2018 & CM Nos. 49294/2018, 53247/2018, 53726/2018 MS RUPAL ANAND ........ Petitioner Through: Ms Kamini Jaiswal, Senior Advocate, Mr Rohit Kumar Singh, Mr Raghavendra Pratap Singh and Ms Shumaila Altaf, Advocates. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr Harsh Ahuja and Mr Kushal for Ms Kumar, Advocates Monika Arora, CGSC for UOI. Mr Nalin Kohli, Mr Ankit Roy, Advocates for R-2. Mr Mridul Jain, Spl. PP for CBI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER1402.2019 VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner is an accomplished badminton player and she claims that she is ranked at serial No.48 in the order of ranking maintained by respondent no.2 (Badminton Association of India hereafter BAI) in Womens Doubles Senior Players Category.2. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by W.P. (C) 12680 of 2018 Page 1 of 5 actions of BAI and respondent no.3 (Jammu & Kashmir Badminton Association) in deb...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Om Maratha vs.union of India & Anr
Court: Delhi
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2690/2017 & CM No.5474/2018 & CM No.7037/2019 HARI OM MARATHA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr Aneesh Mittal, Mr Abhishek Maratha, Ms Nupur Sharma and Ms Shreya Sharma, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr Vivek Goyal, CGSC with Mr Pawan Pathak, Advocate for R-1. Mr Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with Ms Jagrati Singh and Ms Mamta Mayee, Advocates for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER1402.2019 VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the decision of respondent no.2- Civil Services Officers Institute (hereafter CSOI) in rejecting the petitioners application for his admission on the basis that the petitioner was not eligible.2. The petitioner was appointed to the post of a Judicial Member in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by an appointment letter dated W.P. (C) 2690/2017 Page 1 of 8 02.08.1999. The petitioner claims that the said post b...
Tag this Judgment!Central Bureau of Investigation vs.moin Akhtar Qureshi
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: February 14, 2019 CRL.M.C. 760/2019 and Crl.M.A. 3098/2019 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, SPP for CBI with Mr. Prateek Kumar, Advocate Versus MOIN AKHTAR QURESHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. R.K. Handoo, Mr. Yoginder Handoo and Mr. Aditya Chaudhary, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL)... Petitioner has aggrieved by trial courts order of 1st February, 2019 vide which respondent has been allowed to travel abroad upon furnishing of FDR/Bank Guarantee of 2 Crores. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI draws the attention of this Court to order of 18th December, 2018 (Annexure A-4) of co-accused- Pradeep, vide which a Coordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the co-accused-Pradeep to travel abroad upon furnishing of FDR/Bank Guarantee of 6 Crores and so, it is submitted that on parity basis impugned order deserves to be modified while requiring respo...
Tag this Judgment!Revolution Forver Marketing Pvt. Ltd vs.income Tax Officer
Court: Delhi
$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:14. h February, 2019 + W.P.(C) 10857/2016 REVOLUTION FORVER MARKETING PVT. LTD ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.S.Krishnan & Ms.Sujata Kashyap, Advocates versus INCOME TAX OFFICER ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Ajit Sharma, Advocate CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) % 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned notice dated 30.03.2016, under Sectionproposing to re-assess its income for A.Y.2009-10. It contends that all information necessary for computation of income was provided in the returns and that taking them into consideration the AO framed the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) on 30.11.2011.2. The relevant parts of the impugned re-assessment notice reads as follows: Information was received from ITO (investigation) Unit-2 New Delhi vide letter F.No.ITO(Inv.)/U-2/S-56/2015- 16/ 307 dated 28.03.2016. The contents of the letter are as under: W....
Tag this Judgment!